tv [untitled] December 14, 2014 9:00am-9:31am PST
here is the floor plan for the third floor of the neighbor's alternative. contrary to what was thought, the neighbor's alternative allows for the creation of a three-bedroom house, not a two-bedroom, but a three-bedroom on one level. this is the neighbor's alternative with the setbacks, but inside. it should be perfectly acceptable for any contemporary modern family that may be lucky enough to live there, if the commission makes a motion to approve the neighbor's alternative. it's lack of neighborhood preservation and lack of compliance with the rd did g. it's just too big.
whatever the commission approves is the approval action under ceqa as stated on the agenda? the front of the house is basically preserved and the department is to be commended. the two hrers are very interesting and staff should feel professional pride, but again, the rear addition is the problem. overhead, please. 45 27th is currently visible from the public right-of-way on duncan and the 461 project, there it is -- now now, but there it will be -- will be even more visible and it's even larger and massive than 455. the checklist is inaccurate. the project will not be minimally visible as it will be very visible from duncan street. the way to make the checklist accurate is to approve the neighbor's alternative. the setbacks will not only resolve most of the enee
impacts, but with setbacks it becomes minimally visible from duncan street because its visibilitis will be ablit rated and obscured by the existing oppressive massiveness -- a massiveness which should not be repeated at 461. please, make a motion to take dr and approve the neighbor's alternative. thank you very much:thank you, is there additional public comment in opposition to the project? okay. project sponsor, your team has five minutes. >> good afternoon, president wu, commissions. david simpman working with the project sponsors. neely one rob pointer. i would like to show you some photos. this is the existing condition. can you see the two houses on either side forming the
cave-like effect. this is a photo of the mid-block open space; which i think every speaker talked about. and i wondered if i was living in a parallel universe? this is the line of the houses as they approach the mid-block open space. all of the houses on this side of the block exceed the proposal. you can see that this is the lot, where the extension is going in? every single house going down the block extends into the open space, much further than this one. here is a 3-d rendering of the proposal actually it's about
was not impacted. it extends into the rear much farther than the project sponsors. would i oasis also that the rear lots of the project sponsor and lot directly behind it are the largest rear yards on the block and together more than 110' of mid-block open space. so any suggestion that 110' is not enough mid-block open space seems to me
misplaced. the dr applicant has the burden of demonstrating exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and i have seen no such demonstration today and, in fact the planning staff reviewed this meticulously. they didn't find any extraordinary circumstances. and, in fact, if you note on the planning commission agenda, they designated this not as a dr, but abbreviated dr and abbreviated dr i believe is a signal and the second
[a-urpblt/] raised has to did with the neighborhood pattern. i'm sorry, i have to give the sponsor a chance to speak. i would like -- >> my name is neilie pointer i'm the project sponsor and i would like to thank everyone for your time today. just to introduce myself, my husband and i have lived in san francisco for over 16 years and we moved into noe valley in 2008 to start a family. we have children that are currently enrolled in the public school in our neighborhood. >> i'm sorry, you are time has expired. you will have two minutes of rebuttal at the end. >> we'll take public comment in support of the public
comment. >> may i make a note for the public record? >> very quickly. >> there were go sets of couples who each had a husband and wife speak. >> that is public comment. >> that doesn't matter. >> we'll take public comment now from those in support of the project sponsor. >> good evening president wu, commissioners, thank you for you the integrity of our city and the building requirements are very important to me.
review. >> i'm here in support of the project. to keep it brief here, i have a similar sentiment that this project is being built by folks who live in the community, who have lived there a long time and have families and they have raised them here. they are hiring local companies, local contractors, local designers, and that is something that is very important for the preservation of the city. and also, to allow more familis to stay in the city, which as we know, a lot of familis are moving out thank you very much.
i appreciate your time. >> is there any additional public comment? >> thank you for the time and thank you for the commissioners being here today. i am a san francisco native, born and raised in the noe valley and i still have the privilege, the privilege of not only living in the noe valley, but also working there as well. growing up a few streets away from the 461 property otherwise known as the gomez household, it was extremely troubled household which was common knowledge in the neighborhood. when i heard that the house -- . i'm sorry to interrupt you, but the person with the phone, could you please turn that
off. go ahead. >> when they purchased the house, and i have known them for about six years and knew they could make major improvements to that. to 27th street and bringing some piece. robin neely and their daughters are any neighbors and their daughter as you and when i heard about the issues that they improved the house that they purchased it hurt me to say that denominator r requester and supporters were i know these homes are not
practical. i live anyway victorian house with three bedrooms and one bathroom and imagine growing up with five kids and two parents? it was madness. neely and rob's vision for the home is practicality and will meet the modern needs of a modern family. all the neighbors ob27th street will benefit in many ways from the upade of the house and i think who cares about the community, purchased this home risk and uncertainty than a developer. and they just wand good neighbors and still have their daughters safe. noe valley is a wonderful neighborhood and a common culture and historical heritage and we thrive off community and a sense of belonging, but times change and the neighborhood needs to understand that it because it's for the better. >> thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.
>> they are one the few preschool families that stayed in san francisco after graduating pre-school. in the 14 years i have known them. the they have been fully engaged and robert and neely given a lot of time in organizing fundraisers and most recently neely because one of the main driving forces in our search for i new rabbi. i ran this project actually past my pattern, it helps when
you are pattern to an architect with a firm in san francisco and it's misunderstanding that they haven't maxed out of the volume of the house and, in fact they have actually reduced the size because of neighborhood concerns. it's also my understanding that the proposal meets all the conditions and limitations of the planning code and does not request any variances or special consideration. they have chosen to make san francisco their home personally and [pro-els/]al and the time of people to support in san francisco and the people who are willing to engain in their communities for the betterment of the whole. one small note i will make that hasn't been made yet as far as i know, that they actually man to continue to live next door to the house that they are proposing ing to modify. thank you. >> thank you:is there additional public comment.
seeing none, dr questioner, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, president wu and commissioners. overhead, please. the only correction that i wanted to make clear for the record is that the houses that are donehill, even though they have a volume that extends into the mid-block -- >> i'm sorry, ma'am, excuse me. you need to turn off the phones or just go outside. >> thank you very much. the houses that are lower down on the hill from aerial may appear to have inintroduction to the mid-block open space and you can see a little bit on this picture. they are much lower. so that even if they extend into the open space, they are very low profile buildings and so they do not impact the feeling of mid-block open space and don't create a problem. the current proposal in the
house next door of course are very tall as well. in order to comply with a residential guidelines and support a categorical exemption, we again ask that the compromise be considered by the commission to be clear again, it's a 6' reduction in the second floor and 12' -- an additional 6' on the third floor. that is it. very, very simple. what we had heard as a problem before from the project sponsor was that this would not allow a 3-bedroom on one floor for a modern family and, in fact we did not hear that tonight from the project sponsor as a problem. that was the reason given that all of this volume and space was needed. in fact a 3500 square feet home with the very clear possibility and availability of, in fact,
-- a 3-bedroom floor is very possible, and so you see before you a united neighborhood, concerned about an excessively sized house and very willing to support a reasonable sized house that fits with their neighborhood and respects their historic character, step-down nature and mid-block open space. we ask that you accept the neighbor's compromise. thank you. >> thank you. >> project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> this block of 27th is there includes a number of apartment buildings of 5-8 unit and they are the ones at the bottom of the hill that you saw on the photo earlier. there are also a number of homes that have been updated and expanded and i'm telling you this to indicate that this is not a uniform block. the dr requester is adamant that the rear extension must form a stepped wedding cake type of design in the rear in order to meet his insides.
this assertion is inconsistent with the residential design guidelines. no one on the planning staff or residential design team gives this concept any credence at all. the rear extension for this home is only 2' deeper than the second-floor deck of the adjacent home and continues to find -- provide a full 45% rear yard. as mentioned the lot is over 100' deep. that is over 50' rear yard. open space. in in a built up dense, urban environment there are very if you teem that have no structure on the property lines that is partially visible. in particular, neighbors like those next door who have second story rear decks do not have an entitlement to unfettered access to direct sun element. they will still receive sunlight that is ambient or indirect. this is how it is in a dense, urban area. the sponsor's made eight good
neighbor gestures that we detailed in our submittal on page 3. the project reachs a height of only 30'. this is a 40' height district. this is not a monster home or a massive home or whatever adjective you want to use. it's below the limit. the project will benefit this neighborhood, by upgrading an old and run down house to comply with current building codes while seismically improving the house and adding livable space that is suitable for had a family. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> with that that public hearing portion is close the. commissioner richards. >> i did have an emotionalis reaction to the black house, looking at it from the different angles that i saw. and it does appear intrusive to me and i hope that we don't repeat it as a reference house for the us in project, that i
think is just as intrusive if not more innocenttrousive. i don't think the neighbors were against change. i think their compromise is modest and reasonable. that is going from 3900 square feet to roughly 3500 square feet. i think it's sensitive and i think it's reasonable and provides an actual stepdown and i think setbacks are less intricive and massive and keeps more with the scale of the backyards of the neighbors. i think it's a good starting point to take on the project and modify it. as for supporting families living in san francisco, i think this house the 3500 square feet is still a very large house, even for any type of oversized living standards that we may apply. i think a very large family could live there and multi-generational family can probably live there and i know the firm could hire local firms and applaud them for that and hope that the project sponsor does stay in the neighborhoods because we do need more
families and i look forward to the revised residential guidelines to take into consideration this of issues that wear feeling, but i want to get a sense of what my fellow commissioners are feeling. >> commissioner >> antonini. >> my main concern is the impact it may have on neighbors and there have been a couple of things represented. the first is when it's completed, is the real estate -- is the extension only about even or about ' 2' beyond existing homes? that is what the project sponsor says >> i believe the addition would be slightly beyond the existing house. >> the existing neighboring structure. >> so it could be 2' which is what the project sponsor brought up. >> correct. >> but it's fairly comparable. the other thing that they said is even with the extension that
is being proposed, there is still a 45% rear yard, a rear yard of 50' and combined with the neighbor behind them a total of like 110' of rear yard open -- open space? >> correct. as in the current layout, this house is not encroaching into any of the rivers setbacks. so it's essentially code-compliant. >> we have heard a lot about mid-block open space, which this does not inping upon from what i can see and staff is in approval of the way it's constructed right now. it probably could be shorter, obviously, but z it street v that much of an impact on the houses next to it? the way i look at it, those rear yards orb the rears of the houses look to the south, i think, [pho-rpls/]. it may not be due south, but i think they are pretty much to the south, which means that
generally they are going to get sun regardless of the houses that are adjacent to them, even if they are taller, there may be a certain time in certain times of the year where there might be a shadow cast, but it's not going to deprive them of sunlight from the south. so i don't know ifment impact is that great. maybe i could ask a little bit from project sponsor about the floor plan? if you could come up, mr. silverman, or whoever wants to talk about the architecture? i have seen all of these different plans. this proposal for the dr proposed third floor, which is the third floor apparently they showed two bedrooms and a master suite. but your plan is for -- is it for four bedrooms on the upper floor? i'm not sure what your plan? >> this is project architect and i'm going allow him to answer your questions. thank you. >> yes, the current proposal is for four bedrooms on the top floor. >> i think i saw that and it
had -- what kind of sizes? what are the sizes of these various bedrooms? >> the sizes are not massive. i can give you an example. the master bedroom is of course the largest, it's 16' by 12'. the actual children's bedrooms are 10' by 12.8'. there is one 9.8' by 12' and the front one under the dormer, 11' by 12', but has a sloped roof i think they are modest-sized bedrooms. >> those sound like reasonablally sized bedrooms and the proposal is to allow for four bedrooms op the psalm floor, which i could identify with that it's in our home and it's convenient. you could make one into a study, even if a child is not in there. >> correct. >> what would you be able to cutback if the commission obviously? >> if we cutback we would have to lose a bedroom and if we
cutback -- to the dr requester from a mathematical standpoint they are asking that equates to two bedrooms right there. >> i would say that is a pretty large setback. thank you for your comments. >> thank you. >> my feeling is if a project does not have negative impact on the neighbors, and it's in the rear yard, as far as design is concerned, i don't think it's that big of a deal. and i'm judging my vote on this as to impacts on the neighbors rather than whether the home is too big or too many bedrooms or all of these kinds of things? so i would be inclined to go to approve the project , but i will see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner hillis? >> could i have the project architect, could i ask you a
couple of questions? let me get my page. i agree with commissioner antonini, my biggest concern is for the house at 465 27th street and first i think the good things about the project that you leave the front as-is and the 5' setback is good to move the massing down the hill and rye to be away from 365 27th street. can you tell me dimensions on the second floor, how that relates? how far that comes away from their depth and maybe beyond their building wall beyond the boiling well is 12' 6' and setback at their back
building line. a couple feet past their rear deck. >> how about the top floor would be the same thing? because their top floor? >> the top floor would be the same and maintain the 5' away from this and be at the same setback, correct, 12' 6' at 5'. >> okay. there were another set of plans that the neighbor at 465 who are here and spoke, what was the difference between those? there seems to be more sub tanive discussion? >> there was 6' offer in the compromise. >> of the top floor? >> of the top floor. it reduced the side yard from 5' to 3.7'. and it reduced the top floor by the average of the two properties. so if it's 12' 6, reduced it to 6 x 3 and that is the offer we made to the neighbors carrie and andrew and they accepted it. >> if you kept the 5' and
reduceded top floor back 6', how does that reconfigure? do you lose a bedroom up to be? >> it makes a little bit less optimal to use as a bedroom. there were some odd corners in the bedroom and removed the rear encroachment and the actual 3. , it didn't go down two storis,but went and the way down to grade. so there was an entire -- so right now as you can see, the first floor does not have the 5' by 12' setback. >> thank you. that is where i think we have done some good things like the 5' setback but my biggest concern is on the top floor. i think someone showed the case that the board appeals you step back and respect the neighbors,
which i think works. here in it case they are also offering that 5' side setback when i think helps the neighbors. so i would be inclined and i think dr -- taking dr is appropriate. my focus would be on that top floor, perhaps, the 69' reduction, setback on the top floor. i will hear what others have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> the top floor reduction of 6' would be on the living floor not on the roof deck. i find the roof deck completely and totally inappropriate for the entire area and talking about said the backs, i would assume that the roof deck, which we already pretty much felt uncomfortable last time around would disappear. i think roof deck is highly inappropriate for the overall building forms in the are